Talk:On the campaign trail, May 2012

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • Sources are cited inline. Scoop references refer to correspondence or press releases forwarded to scoop.
  • Correspondence with Fred Karger took place on Facebook. I did not receive an e-mail notification.

This was the exchange:

  • WSS: I read your response to the Obama announcement that he now supports marriage equality. You seem satisfied with it, but the president said he believes the issue should be decided by the states. Does that really fit under the definition of marriage equality?
  • Fred Karger: just his coming out for marriage equality is the key. how it will happen is still up in the air. but sure, would rather he came out for a federal marriage solution. all me are created equal. it will be the Supreme Court making that decision, not Congress. I said that I want gay marriage to be the law of the land. it's the LGBT equivalent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Review of revision 1520011 [Passed][edit]

Thanks for the review. For some reason, I had thought I covered Romney bit in the West Virginia article, but apparently not. Hopefully, the use of inline citations made the verification process easier.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure whether the inline citations are better, worse, or just different than the list of sources by section you used the last few months. It's an ongoing quest, to find the best way of correlating article content with sources for big articles like this. Part of it is how I should use whatever supplementary information you've provided. In this case, what I tried was going through the Sources section item by item and checking all the inline citations of that source, then rechecking all the passages in the article that I hadn't marked as verified during the big first pass. I could have used the ordering of inline citations in the article, instead; tough call. I did discover that one of the inline citations had been left out of the Sources section (so I added it there).
I've heard that once upon a time some sort of software was created for this sort of thing, but wasn't adopted because it was too technically challenging to ask contributors to use it. There may be a sort of conservation of complexity — one way or another, tracking the content-source correlations takes effort. --Pi zero (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)